Background
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 15th September, at a dialogue session held on the sidelines of the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore, made some comments which critiqued the treatment of Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. He said: “My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They were successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So every time we say 'no' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says 'Oh, you are not cooperative' You are only thinking of yourself.”
His comments were construed as alleging that both Malaysia and Indonesia deliberately discriminate against their minority Chinese by holding them in a subordinate position. The comments have since earned the ire of politicians of Malaysia, with Indonesia apparently lodging complaints later than the former. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed has hit out at the remarks, while other UMNO politicians have similarly expressed indignation over Lee’s remarks on the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
According to the Straits Times Thursday (28 September), KL and Jakarta have asked for explanation for MM Lee’s remarks (‘KL and Jakarta ask for explanation for MM’s remarks’). Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has written to MM Lee seeking an explanation while Singapore’s Ambassador in Jakarta had been asked by the foreign ministry to give an explanation. Meanwhile, debate rages on in Malaysia not only over MM Lee’s making of those inflammatory remarks, but also over the truth, or untruth, of his opinion.
ST – Reports but no analysis
It is instructive to note that whereas Malaysian papers (from what I understand) have all given prominent attention to the issue, the Singapore Press in comparison have been relatively silent, with the ST filing reports on the issue under its Malaysia section instead of under prime news. The ST does report on the developments of the issue in Malaysia – who and which politician says what as well as the response of the public, for example, the Chinese – but these have strictly been presented as news reports, not commentary nor analysis articles by its columnists. Certainly, the establishment press has not joined in the fray by openly discussing the veracity of MM Lee’s remarks, not to mention their political ramifications. This is not surprising, and there are two reasons that may explain why.
Firstly, there has been no official reply from MM Lee with regard to the controversy that his remarks generated in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is just as expected that no cabinet ministers or government officials have made any comments, at least not which the public know of. The ST, being the national daily that reflects (or is deemed to reflect) the Republic’s position on matters of national importance, is unlikely to be ahead of the government in commenting MM Lee’s remarks or in examining the issue. For what it says and how it frames and reports the issue – as with other sensitive national and foreign policy issues – can affect how foreign governments and their citizens perceive the national and government attitude towards the issue.
Certainly, the ST would not want to add fuel to fire by commenting on the implications of MM Lee’s remarks ahead of clarifications from the latter himself or the Singapore Government. This would ensure that it does not run the risk of aggravating matters, especially with regard to a topic that is perhaps best left to academics and not discussed in the public sphere. By and large, the establishment press and the government play mutually cooperative role when it comes to issues relating to foreign policy: the media understands the gravity and sensitivity of foreign relations and do not – is expected not to – run afoul of the government’s authority and position on foreign affairs by purveying a separate or contradictory position.
Secondly, the Straits Times conscientiously avoids presenting every putatively minor bilateral spat or unhappiness raised by Malaysia as front-page news, so as not to elevate their importance and thereby politicizing the issue. The political consideration underlying this unspoken practice is simple, and a sensible one: given the political sensitivity of bilateral relations and the ST’s national role, it is almost imperative not to give prominence and focus to every piece of news relating, even if relatively significant, to Singapore-Malaysia relations, which are perennially delicate. Doing so could invite unnecessary scrutiny and inadvertently provide fodder for interested parties to impute political motivations.
One example would be the reporting of crimes in Johore by local newspapers during a certain period in the past. Some officials from across the causeway have at one point in time suggested that the media here were pursuing a hidden agenda by what they deemed as biased reporting on crime reports in Johore Bahru involving Singaporeans. While it is in all likelihood that newspapers here have a sensible reason to give greater prominence to such crime reports – they are sensational and thus commercially newsworthy – this may not be what officials in Malaysia think.
On the other hand, positive bilateral developments or news are often given front-page prominence to foster positive atmospherics. (Think, for example, Singapore ministers’ visits to Malaysia during various festive occasions.) Thus, the reports of Malaysians’ response to MM Lee’s remarks have so far been dutifully filed under the less conspicuous Malaysia section and not under prime news. The truth of the matter is that Singapore-Malaysia relations are delicate and the media on both sides have a tremendous capacity to influence opinion and bilateral relations, for better or for worse.
Media and its political role in foreign policy issues
The ST, as well as other media, is acutely aware of the troublesome nature of MM Lee’s remarks. They can neither come out in support of his remarks by commenting on race relations in neighbouring states, nor are they any likely to comment on the wisdom of making those remarks, which, one should note, were intended for a foreign audience whom the senior statesman wish to draw attention to the geo-ethno realities confronting Singapore (and hence their supposed connection to governance in the Singapore case).
Doing either would be politically precarious and would most inevitably aggravate the situation and lead to a possible quick deterioration in bilateral ties. It is therefore expected that local newspapers have since the onset maintained a neutral stance, reporting disinterestedly on the reactions from Malaysia and Indonesia instead of publishing any commentary pieces by its own journalists. (It also bears mentioning that thus far, ST Forum has only published a letter relating to the issue from one of its readers.)
Politically speaking, the government and the media know that MM Lee’s remarks, whether justified or not, have the potential of making yet another diplomatic fiasco, and the best they can hope for now is that the issue would die away over time, after MM Lee makes his response. (The Malaysian Government is not wrong in saying that MM Lee’s remarks can incite racial feelings in Malaysians, particularly amongst the minority Chinese, and MM Lee’s making of those remarks cannot but force his Malaysian counterpart to make an official response.)
Note: With regard to the above discussion, one may wish to draw parallel to another figure’s remarks which have engendered world-wide reaction. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech on faith and reason had quoted a line from an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor, which earned the ire of Muslims world-wide. The ST has since reproduced his entire speech (ST Review, 25 September) and carried articles of academics and its journalists alike.
Arguably, the controversy involved sensitive religious matters just as MM Lee’s remarks touched on sensitive racial relations. However, unlike the prominent commentary and analyses given to the Pope’s speech and its consequences, the ST gave inconspicuous coverage of MM Lee’s remarks and the furore which ensued in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, in Indonesia. This only underscores the nexus between bilateral relations between Singapore and its immediate neighbours and the media in the sensitive foreign policy arena
Addendum: This was written before MM Lee made his response to Malaysia PM Abdullah Badawi. MM Lee's reply, understandably, has been filed under Prime News in the ST, though not given front-page coverage. As it is, his reply and PM Abdullah's response were reported in a straightforward manner, without any commentary. The Malaysian Government have decided not to pursue the issue, after the PM said to the Press that he has 'noted' MM Lee's reply.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 15th September, at a dialogue session held on the sidelines of the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore, made some comments which critiqued the treatment of Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. He said: “My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They were successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So every time we say 'no' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says 'Oh, you are not cooperative' You are only thinking of yourself.”
His comments were construed as alleging that both Malaysia and Indonesia deliberately discriminate against their minority Chinese by holding them in a subordinate position. The comments have since earned the ire of politicians of Malaysia, with Indonesia apparently lodging complaints later than the former. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed has hit out at the remarks, while other UMNO politicians have similarly expressed indignation over Lee’s remarks on the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
According to the Straits Times Thursday (28 September), KL and Jakarta have asked for explanation for MM Lee’s remarks (‘KL and Jakarta ask for explanation for MM’s remarks’). Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has written to MM Lee seeking an explanation while Singapore’s Ambassador in Jakarta had been asked by the foreign ministry to give an explanation. Meanwhile, debate rages on in Malaysia not only over MM Lee’s making of those inflammatory remarks, but also over the truth, or untruth, of his opinion.
ST – Reports but no analysis
It is instructive to note that whereas Malaysian papers (from what I understand) have all given prominent attention to the issue, the Singapore Press in comparison have been relatively silent, with the ST filing reports on the issue under its Malaysia section instead of under prime news. The ST does report on the developments of the issue in Malaysia – who and which politician says what as well as the response of the public, for example, the Chinese – but these have strictly been presented as news reports, not commentary nor analysis articles by its columnists. Certainly, the establishment press has not joined in the fray by openly discussing the veracity of MM Lee’s remarks, not to mention their political ramifications. This is not surprising, and there are two reasons that may explain why.
Firstly, there has been no official reply from MM Lee with regard to the controversy that his remarks generated in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is just as expected that no cabinet ministers or government officials have made any comments, at least not which the public know of. The ST, being the national daily that reflects (or is deemed to reflect) the Republic’s position on matters of national importance, is unlikely to be ahead of the government in commenting MM Lee’s remarks or in examining the issue. For what it says and how it frames and reports the issue – as with other sensitive national and foreign policy issues – can affect how foreign governments and their citizens perceive the national and government attitude towards the issue.
Certainly, the ST would not want to add fuel to fire by commenting on the implications of MM Lee’s remarks ahead of clarifications from the latter himself or the Singapore Government. This would ensure that it does not run the risk of aggravating matters, especially with regard to a topic that is perhaps best left to academics and not discussed in the public sphere. By and large, the establishment press and the government play mutually cooperative role when it comes to issues relating to foreign policy: the media understands the gravity and sensitivity of foreign relations and do not – is expected not to – run afoul of the government’s authority and position on foreign affairs by purveying a separate or contradictory position.
Secondly, the Straits Times conscientiously avoids presenting every putatively minor bilateral spat or unhappiness raised by Malaysia as front-page news, so as not to elevate their importance and thereby politicizing the issue. The political consideration underlying this unspoken practice is simple, and a sensible one: given the political sensitivity of bilateral relations and the ST’s national role, it is almost imperative not to give prominence and focus to every piece of news relating, even if relatively significant, to Singapore-Malaysia relations, which are perennially delicate. Doing so could invite unnecessary scrutiny and inadvertently provide fodder for interested parties to impute political motivations.
One example would be the reporting of crimes in Johore by local newspapers during a certain period in the past. Some officials from across the causeway have at one point in time suggested that the media here were pursuing a hidden agenda by what they deemed as biased reporting on crime reports in Johore Bahru involving Singaporeans. While it is in all likelihood that newspapers here have a sensible reason to give greater prominence to such crime reports – they are sensational and thus commercially newsworthy – this may not be what officials in Malaysia think.
On the other hand, positive bilateral developments or news are often given front-page prominence to foster positive atmospherics. (Think, for example, Singapore ministers’ visits to Malaysia during various festive occasions.) Thus, the reports of Malaysians’ response to MM Lee’s remarks have so far been dutifully filed under the less conspicuous Malaysia section and not under prime news. The truth of the matter is that Singapore-Malaysia relations are delicate and the media on both sides have a tremendous capacity to influence opinion and bilateral relations, for better or for worse.
Media and its political role in foreign policy issues
The ST, as well as other media, is acutely aware of the troublesome nature of MM Lee’s remarks. They can neither come out in support of his remarks by commenting on race relations in neighbouring states, nor are they any likely to comment on the wisdom of making those remarks, which, one should note, were intended for a foreign audience whom the senior statesman wish to draw attention to the geo-ethno realities confronting Singapore (and hence their supposed connection to governance in the Singapore case).
Doing either would be politically precarious and would most inevitably aggravate the situation and lead to a possible quick deterioration in bilateral ties. It is therefore expected that local newspapers have since the onset maintained a neutral stance, reporting disinterestedly on the reactions from Malaysia and Indonesia instead of publishing any commentary pieces by its own journalists. (It also bears mentioning that thus far, ST Forum has only published a letter relating to the issue from one of its readers.)
Politically speaking, the government and the media know that MM Lee’s remarks, whether justified or not, have the potential of making yet another diplomatic fiasco, and the best they can hope for now is that the issue would die away over time, after MM Lee makes his response. (The Malaysian Government is not wrong in saying that MM Lee’s remarks can incite racial feelings in Malaysians, particularly amongst the minority Chinese, and MM Lee’s making of those remarks cannot but force his Malaysian counterpart to make an official response.)
Note: With regard to the above discussion, one may wish to draw parallel to another figure’s remarks which have engendered world-wide reaction. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech on faith and reason had quoted a line from an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor, which earned the ire of Muslims world-wide. The ST has since reproduced his entire speech (ST Review, 25 September) and carried articles of academics and its journalists alike.
Arguably, the controversy involved sensitive religious matters just as MM Lee’s remarks touched on sensitive racial relations. However, unlike the prominent commentary and analyses given to the Pope’s speech and its consequences, the ST gave inconspicuous coverage of MM Lee’s remarks and the furore which ensued in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, in Indonesia. This only underscores the nexus between bilateral relations between Singapore and its immediate neighbours and the media in the sensitive foreign policy arena
Addendum: This was written before MM Lee made his response to Malaysia PM Abdullah Badawi. MM Lee's reply, understandably, has been filed under Prime News in the ST, though not given front-page coverage. As it is, his reply and PM Abdullah's response were reported in a straightforward manner, without any commentary. The Malaysian Government have decided not to pursue the issue, after the PM said to the Press that he has 'noted' MM Lee's reply.
1 comments:
A particularly good analysis of the situation and of our local media's restrain in reporting bilateral issues with regards to MM Lee's speech. Though it is unfortunate that our mainstream media are still constrained by our government over critical commentary with regards to statements by our own leaders.
Which I had mentioned to a friend before, we have Singaporeans convicted within our courts for comments which might incite local racial violence which ran afoul of our sedition act. Yet, we have one of our leaders commenting on our neighbour's racial issues, while the comment itself might not be factually wrong, yet the comment itself is provocative and might incite our neighbour's population.
Putting our money where our mouth is, encouraging one's citizens to respect and embrace one another's culture and religion is about walking the walk and talk the talk, especially within the context of our sensitive bilateral relations with our neighbours.
Thus before we start adopting that siege mentality where we think that our neighbours are against us; we should start reviewing what we say and our policies in engaging them.
Post a Comment